A Critical Response to the Media's Manufactured Outrage Over Roman Cabanac's Appointment

In recent days, the media has been abuzz with controversy surrounding the appointment of Roman Cabanac as the chief of staff to DA leader and agriculture minister, John Steenhuisen.

In recent days, the media has been abuzz with controversy surrounding the appointment of Roman Cabanac as the chief of staff to DA leader and agriculture minister, John Steenhuisen. The crux of the outrage appears to be centered on allegations of bigotry against Cabanac, yet the articles and opinion pieces making these claims conspicuously lack concrete examples to substantiate them. The few examples given are usually subjective and out of context, often implying some sort of unfounded racism and other slurs typical of media hit pieces.

This raises a critical question: Is the media manufacturing outrage to oppose Steenhuisen's decision, rather than focusing on the actual qualifications and capabilities required for the role?

First and foremost, it is essential to understand the nature of the chief of staff position. This role is fundamentally administrative, focusing on managing office operations, coordinating activities, and ensuring that the minister's office runs smoothly. It is not a policy-making position. The chief of staff does not set the political agenda or make policy decisions; rather, they support the minister in executing their duties effectively. Therefore, the primary criteria for this role should be administrative competence, organizational skills, and the ability to manage a team efficiently.

The media's fixation on Cabanac's alleged bigotry, without providing specific instances or evidence, diverts attention from the more pertinent issue: whether he is qualified to perform the job. The articles fail to address Cabanac's professional background, his administrative experience, or his capability to manage the operations of Steenhuisen's office. Instead, they rely on vague accusations and innuendo, which do little to inform the public about his suitability for the role.

Moreover, it is worth noting that political appointments often involve a degree of trust and personal rapport. Ministers and leaders typically appoint individuals they trust and who they believe can help them achieve their objectives. This is not unique to the DA; it is a common practice across political systems worldwide. The key issue should be whether these appointments are made based on merit and the ability to perform the job, not on political labels or past social media posts.

The media's portrayal of Cabanac's appointment as a symbol of bigotry within the DA seems to be an attempt to generate outrage rather than a balanced analysis of his qualifications. This approach undermines the public's ability to make informed judgments about the appointment. It also distracts from more pressing issues, such as the effectiveness of the coalition government and the policies being implemented to address the country's challenges.

In conclusion, the focus should be on whether Roman Cabanac is qualified and capable of performing the duties of a chief of staff, not on unsubstantiated claims of bigotry. The media's role should be to provide a balanced and evidence-based analysis, rather than manufacturing outrage to oppose a political appointment. It is time to move beyond political labels and focus on the qualifications and capabilities that truly matter in public service.